Is Old Skool building disappearing?

I was wondering, shameless self-promotion aside, what Eurobricks members think of studded building? Two of my MOCs are below, one is normal studs-up, the other full-stud. Is this technique looked down on now? I'm currently building a smooth MOC as it's actually the most efficient way to make it, but I'm wondering whether I should abandon studded building for whatever I make that follows it?

Honest opinions very much welcome: Studs Vs Smooth?

(I can see a wealth of opportunity for sexual jokes here so thought I'd pre-empt any gutter talk with this sentence).

Thanks EuroBrickers

Ape

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ApeFight/Rat-Rod/dsc00241_edited.jpg

Full Stud - Rat Rod

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ApeFight/Classic-Convertible/dsc00082_edited.jpg

Studs on Top - Classic Sports Car

Edited April 29, 201113 yr by Siegfried
Nice MOCs but the images are too big

The studded look definitely gives models that nostalgia look where as everyone that sees the model easily recognizes it as Lego, but times have changed(along with addition of 100's of new unique parts) where as you can build models that are not only exceptionally smooth with great curves, but also offer more of a wow factor because they are tough to tell if they are in fact even made out of Lego...

Firas Abu-Jaber's models are a fine example of this.

I still appreciate all styles of Lego building whether it be studs, snot, city, castle, or even Victorian Dollhouses...

Those 2 models that you provided pictures of are very nice.

Edited April 29, 201113 yr by Paul Boratko

I just like completely studless better. It makes the models more realistic in my opinion.

If we talk about vehicles, I like combination of studs and studless, but with precise division.

Studs must go into the chassis, as they are much stronger, and smooth parts (tiles, curves, slopes) must go to the outside, on the body.

Before I used only stud building:________________________________________________Today I use only studless for the body, chassis is still studs:

Edited April 29, 201113 yr by Milan

If we talk about vehicles, I like combination of studs and studless, but with precise division.

Studs must go into the chassis, as they are much stronger, and smooth parts (tiles, curves, slopes) must go to the outside, on the body.

Before I used only stud building: Today I use only studless for the body, chassis is still studs:

That's a great comparison ^ Beautiful models, and the second is definately nicer

If we talk about vehicles, I like combination of studs and studless, but with precise division.

Studs must go into the chassis, as they are much stronger, and smooth parts (tiles, curves, slopes) must go to the outside, on the body.

Before I used only stud building:________________________________________________Today I use only studless for the body, chassis is still studs:

Well i agree with Milan.

Edited April 29, 201113 yr by Siegfried
Removed pointless image quote...

I personally like my models to show studs. They're made out of LEGO and I prefer to be able to see that and don't think it detracts from the wow-factor either. I'm also pretty sure that there are certain things that would be practically impossible to pull off if I were to insist on studlessness.

Su-27 Flanker (10) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

The locations of the studs not completely random. I tend to limit them to upper surfaces. I also use combinations of studded elemets and studless elements to create gentler-looking transitions than would be possible with either tiles or plates, much as the model builders for LEGOland parks do. Case in point: the hood and roof of my Jaguar.

Jaguar Mk VII (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

I can't count how many times I've had comments by people along the lines of 'nice, but would be better if studless'. I disagree. I've seen brilliant MOCs that had studs and I've seen rubbish that was studless. Ultimately it doesn't matter all that much.

Cheers,

Ralph

I completely agree with the WOW factor thing. when you see a model that is made out of Legos that doesn't look like it, that is pretty impressive. But there is nothing wrong with a nice old school looking studded model either. Everyone has their preferences. I just love how Legos keep evolving for the better.

I can't count how many times I've had comments by people along the lines of 'nice, but would be better if studless'. I disagree. I've seen brilliant MOCs that had studs and I've seen rubbish that was studless. Ultimately it doesn't matter all that much.

Cheers,

Ralph

Actually that 'nice, but would be better studless' comment is one I hear a lot about my Sports Car at the top of this page, and is what prompted me to post this topic. Your Jag has a great transition between smooth and studs; it adds a curve where there isn't one.

Keep the comments coming - I like hearing what people think about this one. My Rat Rod has had a pretty mixed reaction to the full-stud bodywork; some love it, some say 'too many studs!!'.

Edited April 29, 201113 yr by Ape Fight

I don't think that "studs are dead"; they have a place in certain Lego Technic constructions. If one considers Sariel's Lego Jeep Wrangler Rubicon trial truck pictured below, he used the old-style Technic Bricks in the truck bed (where certain items needed to be attached). "Studless" building is more versatile and realistic-looking. Sariel's design uses the strengths of both "studded" and "studless" building.

I don't think that "studs are dead"; they have a place in certain Lego Technic constructions. If one considers Sariel's Lego Jeep Wrangler Rubicon trial truck pictured below, he used the old-style Technic Bricks in the truck bed (where certain items needed to be attached). "Studless" building is more versatile and realistic-looking. Sariel's design uses the strengths of both "studded" and "studless" building.

I don't think this topic is really about studded Vs studless "Technic" building, just the studded appearance overall.

I can't believe anyone would tell Ralph to lose the studs. His models are great.

As to studded v. studless, I like having two different ways to approach whatever it is I'm trying to build. The fun, and often the challenge, is coming up with just the right balance studded and smooth, function and appearance, and so on. Sometimes I want something that's very smooth and technic looking:

Other times, I want the studs so as to achieve a certain visual effect or for contrast:

And of course, you can mix the two as well...

I recently finished a Vehicle MOC, and I chose a mix of both - mostly due to my limited experience in creating Studless Technic from scratch - I'm still more comfortable with good ol' Bricks :)

However, as I experimented with the body, I decided to put some tiles on the surfaces, and I'll admit, that in my opinion, it improved the look. However there are plenty of places where it was impossible to place tiles evenly (and my limited supply of red tiles!) so I left some areas with studs, which I don't think detracts at all. This particular vehicle isn't the most aerodynamic, nor stylish, so some studs here and there added to the look, I think...

Personally, I think the best Technic sets have had a mix of both studded, and studless

Now that I've had a bit more experience with building that way (the main drive/steering bit of my Moke was studless), my next creation might go all studless

and personally.. I can be wow'ed by either forms of building... always impressive when people use old, or new parts in ways I've never seen!

RB

I personally like my models to show studs. They're made out of LEGO and I prefer to be able to see that and don't think it detracts from the wow-factor either. I'm also pretty sure that there are certain things that would be practically impossible to pull off if I were to insist on studlessness.

Su-27 Flanker (10) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

The locations of the studs not completely random. I tend to limit them to upper surfaces. I also use combinations of studded elemets and studless elements to create gentler-looking transitions than would be possible with either tiles or plates, much as the model builders for LEGOland parks do. Case in point: the hood and roof of my Jaguar.

Jaguar Mk VII (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

I can't count how many times I've had comments by people along the lines of 'nice, but would be better if studless'. I disagree. I've seen brilliant MOCs that had studs and I've seen rubbish that was studless. Ultimately it doesn't matter all that much.

Cheers,

Ralph

so you are the guy i idolize on flickr :D

I think that the old studs school is more easy but less nice to see and less detailed; moreover LEGO provides new kind of specific pieces for the smooth era that allow brilliant solution in miniaturized way, so to replicate a complex modern mechanism with the old studs technique sometimes force you to build inelegant-huge-solution.

In 1978 LEGO realized the set 853 without a differential mechanism, in 1980 in the set 8860 the new differential whas there: very compact and very useful. Similarly today it's impossible to build some set (for exemple 8843) with old pieces and old technique.

There are a lot of other threads about this topic, like this below:

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=43755&st=0&p=768088&fromsearch=1entry768088

We seem to be having two conversations at the same time. Some people are obvisouly writing about studless Technic building vs. studded Technic building. I suppose it makes sense, considering that this is the Technic forum. However, I had the impression that Ape Fight was referring to the look of a studded model versus a studless one, which makes sens, considering that this forum is also for Model Team

Actually that 'nice, but would be better studless' comment is one I hear a lot about my Sports Car at the top of this page, and is what prompted me to post this topic. Your Jag has a great transition between smooth and studs; it adds a curve where there isn't one.

Keep the comments coming - I like hearing what people think about this one. My Rat Rod has had a pretty mixed reaction to the full-stud bodywork; some love it, some say 'too many studs!!'.

People are obviously free to express their opinions, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion -which some people seem to have- that a studded model somehow is no good.

I can't believe anyone would tell Ralph to lose the studs. His models are great.

As to studded v. studless, I like having two different ways to approach whatever it is I'm trying to build. The fun, and often the challenge, is coming up with just the right balance studded and smooth, function and appearance, and so on. Sometimes I want something that's very smooth and technic looking:

Comments about studs is one of the reasons why I quit MOCpages. There are plenty of kids on there who seem to think that if a model isn't studless, it's no good. That ladybug is wonderful BTW.

so you are the guy i idolize on flickr :D

Cheers,

Ralph

As a young lego technic builder( i didn't know lego technic with studded constructions), i prefer build with studless parts. I find them more "professional" and technic than studfull one which seem to be more appropriated for model team or city.

By the way, I also like models built out of studfull parts because they often look very detailed. Unfortunately, you need a lot of parts to be able to build such a model and so it is often heavier and so more fragile ( moreover you need to have the money to buy all this parts).

So, I definitivly prefer build with studless parts but like seeing other technic model with studfull :)

And I also think that studless is not more complicated than studfull, it's only different, each method has his avantage and desavantage ( as stated earlier in this topic).

Edited May 1, 201113 yr by GuiliuG

Having been in my Dark Ages for years: what were the reactions when TLG almost completely switched to Studless?

Did Technic fans hate is at first?

Personally: I like studless more. It is a more intriguing way of building and it is far more interesting and better looking than studded.

^I don't like the switch to studless. First the panels, then the replacement of the studded beams, making everyting what has to do with the classic LEGO brick undone. As an addition to studded parts, yes, but not as a replacement.

I like it when studs are visible in models. As I said, studs is what LEGO makes what it is. A combination can be good as well, but a studless creation, especially when no studded parts are used (modern TECHNIC)... possibly I will never like them as much if they had studs.

Edited May 1, 201113 yr by Richie

Back when the studs models were new I thought they were really good looking. Looking at them now however I don't find them very nice; the 8880 Supercar is a good example. In my eyes it is like looking at a 10 year old video game, 10 years ago the graphics looked great but looking at the same game today it is not a very pretty sight.

With that said, I can still enjoy looking at custom builds posted at this forum using studs beams though.

I like to mix both the techniques. In the "supercar" I'm building, the central part of the chassis is studded and rigid, while rear and front suspension (front side with steering, of course) I use more flexible studless construction.

Edited May 1, 201113 yr by Plastic Nurak